Markus Andrews

Sajid Javid reportedly warned members of the cabinet against the relaxation of Covid international travel rules, arguing it increased the risk of having to shut down the entire economy.The health secretary was said to have made the intervention during a meeting of the Covid operations committee earlier this week and suggested keeping the requirement for post-arrival PCR tests was vital in detecting new variants.It comes after Boris Johnson announced this week that testing requirements for fully vaccinated arrivals into the UK would be eased, including the removal of the pre-departure tests — a move that was welcomed by the tourism industry.From Sunday, travellers will also be required to take a post-arrival lateral flow test — purchased from a private provider — instead of the current requirement to take a PCR laboratory test on day two of arriving back in the country.The prime minister argued that pre-departure tests “discourages many from travelling for fear of being trapped overseas and incurring significant extra expense”.But according to The Times, Mr Javid strong opposed the relaxation and warned senior ministers present at a meeting earlier this week that PCR requirement was “instrumental” in detecting new variants sooner when people enter the country.“Sajid was very unhappy about the decision to remove the requirement for PCR tests,” a government source told the newspaper.They added: “He argued they are instrumental in spotting new variants sooner. He said that by scrapping them you increase the risk of having to shut down the entire economy. But he lost the argument.”Asked why Mr Johnson decided to relax rules after Mr Javid’s comments during a Covid-O meeting, the prime minister’s official spokesperson told journalists on Friday: “I don’t think you’d expect me to comment on private meetings.“But ministers collectively agreed to these changes to our international travel rules, including the changes around day two PCR testing — given that we feel they are no longer proportionate given that Omicron is the dominant variant in the UK with widespread community transmission.”They added: “I’d also highlight we maintained the requirement for passengers to take post-arrival lateral flow tests, and if that test is positive they will still need to take a PCR test which will help us identify variants.”Pressed on Mr Javid’s reported comments, the business minister Paul Scully also told Sky News: “I don’t believe at this stage that we need any more lockdowns.“What we are doing today is announcing the fact that the money for hospitality, retail, leisure and accommodation is available now for those businesses who have been hard-pressed throughout this pandemic, and especially that Christmas period when plan B came in, for those businesses to be able to approach their local authorities and get the financial support they need.“But what we’ve got to do is make sure we can balance the needs of everybody in what is an incredibly difficult situation – the pressures on the NHS, but also the pressures on the economy, the pressures on households, jobs, livelihoods, and indeed money that is coming in to pay for the public services in the first place.” More

There is “nothing untoward” about Boris Johnson discussing policy with a Tory donor who pair for his flat refurb, a government minister has said. Labour has called for a new standards commissioner investigation into the prime minister after text messages emerged between him and Lord Brownlow.The conversations show the PM called parts of his Downing Street residence a “tip” and promised to look into the donor’s proposal for a “great exhibition” while negotiating payments for the refurb.Mr Johnson on Thursday apologised for not giving the texts to his independent ethics advisor during the course of a previous probe – as opposition deputy chief Angela Rayner called for a fresh inquiry.In a media appearance on Friday morning business minister Paul Scully was asked whether the conversation amounted to corruption.“Ministers get proposals all the time and what rightly happened was that this got pushed on to the Culture, Media and Sport Department (DCMS) where it sits,” Mr Scully told Times Radio.“Lord Brownlow made his own approaches and it wouldn’t have just gone to the Prime Minister, but the important thing is it’s not gone ahead… so there’s nothing untoward that’s happening out of, you know, a few lines in a WhatsApp.”Labour meanwhile said “cosy text messages” between Mr Johnson and Lord Brownlow raised questions about “cash for access”.The party has said Commons Standards Commissioner Kathryn Stone should investigate.Steve Reed, the shadow justice secretary, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “They matter immensely because Lord Brownlow appears to have access to the Prime Minister because he was paying for the flat renovations.“If that is the case, that is corruption. And what we’re seeing here is a case of potentially cash for access where Lord Brownlow was given access to ministers to try and influence them over decisions of spending taxpayers’ money – that is why this matters so immensely.“Those very cosy text messages show there was a quid pro quo in operation between the Prime Minister and Lord Brownlow, and we need to get to the absolute bottom of this.”Asked whether it is still a problem as the Great Exhibition was not given the go-ahead, Mr Reed replied: “The issue is not whether it happened, it is whether rich people can pay to get access to Government ministers to try and influence them over how they decide to spend taxpayers’ money.”Later, No 10 attempted to insist the referral of Lord Brownlow’s suggestion of a “Great Exhibition” to the culture department was “normal practice” and “quite usual”.“It’s routine that when proposals are put to departments that departments take them forward,” the prime minister’s spokesperson said, emphasising the Great Exhibition proposal “wasn’t taken forward”.The spokesperson said it was “quite usual when any suggestion such as this are put forward it’s right they are passed on to relevant department to take forward and as you’re aware Oliver Dowden met with Lord Brownlow at the Royal Albert Hall on the joint proposal — declared in the regular DCMS transparency returns”.They added: “As I say, it is normal practice that when an idea or proposal is put to the prime minister, it is referred to the relevant departments to take forward, and in this case the decision was taken not to take this any further.”Asked whether Boris Johnson had a role in setting up the meeting, the spokesman said it “would have been referred to DCMS through the usual official channels”.The spokesman added the Tory peer’s suggestion was “dealt with in the same way” as a member of the public’s would have been “in that a department will look at it and take a view on it”.Quizzed on why the Great Exhibition 2.0 idea was turned down, the No 10 official replied: “We’ve taken forward the idea of Festival UK and Unboxed 2022, which you can see all the details off on the website and is available for everybody to see. We went with that, which we confirmed in 2018 and was set out in the manifesto in 2019.” More

Senior cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg has been accused of crying “crocodile tears” over the National Insurance rise, as Conservative MPs say it is too late for a rebellion over the looming tax hike.The Commons leader is understood to have spoken out against April’s 1.25 per cent rise at cabinet this week – arguing that it could not be justified amid the mounting cost of living crisis.Senior Tory MP Jake Berry, chair of the Northern Research Group (NRG) said Mr Rees-Mogg could have opposed the measure when it was proposed last autumn.“It’s all very well to turn around with crocodile tears now and say, ‘Look what my policies have created’,” Mr Berry told Times Radio. “Surely this shouldn’t have happened. In fact, the time to do something about it was when it was proposed.”He added: “So if Jacob Rees-Mogg wants to vote with his feet that’s up to him. It’s a bit late in the day, and I do hope that the government may think again.”Other Tory backbenchers urging the government to act on the cost of living crisis told The Independent it was now too late for a U-turn on National Insurance, despite Mr Rees-Mogg’s opposition.The party had been asked to back the rise in September to help meet the cost of the government’s social care reforms and growing NHS backlog, with only 10 rebels voting against the 1.25 per cent hike.Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, who opposed the tax rise, said: “I had my doubts that it would be spent on adult social care – my worry is that once it goes into the NHS pot it will never come out again. But a U-turn on that just isn’t going to happen.”Mr Mackinlay, chair of the Net Zero Scutiny Group of Tory backbenchers – who wants the government to scrap green levies on energy bills – said: “We have to look at other ways to help taxpayers.”Tory MP Robert Halfon said: “The decision [on National Insurance] has been made – they are not going to go back on it. Politics is the art of the possible. People don’t want us to put up taxes. But I’d rather focus on ways to help with energy bills.”Chancellor Rishi Sunak has vowed to press ahead with a planned National Insurance hike, but suggested he would consider ways to support hard-pressed families with fuel bills.“I have enormous respect for all of my colleagues,” he told reporters when asked about Mr Rees-Mogg’s apparent revolt. “It’s always easy to duck difficult decisions, but I don’t think that’s the responsible thing to do.”The hike in national insurance will come after inflation hit 5.1 per cent, more than double the UK’s 2 per cent target. Households are set to suffer another blow in April as the energy price cap is expected to be raised.Mr Mackinlay and Mr Halfon are among 20 Tory MPs and peers to have written an open letter asking the government to scrap VAT and green levies on rapidly-rising energy bills.Labour has also urged the government to cut VAT on energy bills, and the Liberal Democrats have called for a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. More

Dominic Raab’s department wasted a “staggering” £238m of its budget last year, according to new figures – an increase of 14 times on the year before.Labour called for an urgent National Audit Office investigation into the losses at the Ministry of Justice, which were driven by overspends worth tens of millions of pounds on an array of ill-advised or bungled projects.The biggest-ticket item driving up the level of waste was £98.2m on a new case management system for electronic tagging of criminals – which was then scrapped before it could be used.The department also had to pay an extra £72.1m HMRC because it had incorrectly reported the employment status of some of its workers, being hit with a further £15m penalty for breaching the rules. This part of the cash was returned to the Treasury.And £14m was paid to private contractors running probation services for the department breaking their contracts early, even though those companies had failed to hit their targets to reduce re-offending.Humiliatingly, HM Courts and Tribunals Service then spent £18m on a software system to manage cases which was so bad that courts staff are now threatening strike action over it.Mr Raab took over running the ministry in September last year, replacing Robert Buckland, who had held the role since 2019.Steve Reed, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, said the figures, put together by the opposition, showed that Mr Raab was unable to control his ministry.“This high tax, soft-on-crime Conservative Government has yet again wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money,” he said. “It adds to a growing charge sheet including record court backlogs that see victims fail to get justice, pitifully low convictions for rape, and a drugs epidemic in prisons. It is another reminder that Justice Secretary Dominic Raab has no grip on his Department. “The National Audit Office needs to investigate urgently so taxpayers can see just why so much public money has been thrown away.”The opposition has in recent months targeted the government over waste and misspending of public funds – previously focusing on the handling of emergency pandemic contracts.Mr Reed reiterated the Labour promise to create an independent Office for Value for Money to scrutinise government spending.A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “Achieving value for money for taxpayers is a key consideration in all our decision-making and the department has always stayed within its spending budget.“We have improved public safety by bringing forward reforms designed to help protect the public by reducing re-offending and cutting crime and providing swift access to justice. More

The government’s plan to provide 7,000 air purifiers to schools falls thousands short of what is needed to ensure adequate ventilation in every classroom, according to a survey of teachers.The Department for Education said ventilation in classrooms was key to reducing the spread of Covid-19 among schoolchildren but many teachers report that they have been left unable to even monitor the quality of their air.Labour said the government was providing “just a fraction” of the ventilation support that schools need.A survey of nearly 2,000 teachers by Nasuwt, the teachers’ union, found that more than half (56 per cent) did not have access to a CO2 monitor despite a commitment by ministers to provide all schools and colleges with them at the start of the school year.Over one third (34 per cent) said CO2 levels often or sometimes exceeded 1500ppm in their classrooms, a level the government has acknowledged as unsatisfacory.Around 10 per cent of teachers said their monitors were not working properly.Dr Patrick Roach, general secretary of Nasuwt, said the promise of 7,000 air purifiers “barely scratches the service”.“Ministers have consistently emphasised the importance of ensuring good ventilation in heavily populated settings as a key mitigation in reducing the spread of Covid-19, yet they have consistently failed throughout this pandemic to ensure schools and colleges can be kept as safe as possible by equipping schools with the tools to improve classroom ventilation.“Efforts to ensure good ventilation in the fight against Covid should not be a lottery for schools and colleges. Schools should be guaranteed the equipment that is needed, rather than being offered a chance to bid for an air purifier.“We repeat our call for the government to go further and ensure CO2 monitors for every classroom as well as the provision of additional air purifiers for every school and college where ventilation has been identified as persistently poor.”Bridget Phillipson, shadow education secretary, said ministers were “falling short” of what was needed to keep children learning in schools due to “a lack of tests, only half of eligible children vaccinated and just a fraction of the ventilation systems our schools need”.She added: “Labour called for decisive action to be taken over the Christmas break to get these problems solved but the government has again failed to get ahead of the virus.“We’ve got a new Education Secretary, a new team of government ministers, but our children are still being treated as an afterthought with chaotic, last-minute announcements hampering their education. It is incompetent, complacent, and inadequate.”Nadhim Zahawi, the education secretary, said in repsonse to a question from Ms Phillipson in parliament that the government was confident that “where schools are able to ventilate, they are doing so and therefore do not need the air purifiers”.He said that air purifiers would be sent out next week to schools that need them, “especially to special needs and alternative provision settings, which as she knows are the most vulnerable, and to all other schools that cannot mitigate the problem of ventilation in the classroom.”Labour pointed out that the purifiers would not arrive to schools until 620 days after the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) first warned about the importance of ventilation for opening schools safely.And Ellie Reeves, a Labour MP, said she had seen an email from a school in her constituency “asking for children as young as four to come to school in extra layers so that the windows can be kept open in winter.”She said: “Isn’t the government’s failure to get to grips with ventilation in our schools just another example of this government treating our children’s education as an afterthought?” More

Boris Johnson is facing renewed criticism over the funding of his Downing Street flat refurbishment after his own ethics adviser condemned the “extraordinary” failure to hand over key messages during his investigation.The prime minister offered a “humble and sincere apology” to Lord Geidt – blaming a new mobile phone number for his failure to recall his exchange with Tory donor who offered to pay for the work.So what exactly do we know about the messages, the funding arrangements behind the refurb, and the various attempts to get to the bottom of the row? The Independent took a closer look at the timeline of the scandal’s incredible twists and turns.November 2020Mr Johnson and his partner Carrie wanted to have renovation work carried out on their private flat at 11 Downing Street. The PM contacted to Tory donor Lord Brownlow ask about paying for planned work by interior designer Lulu Lytle.In these messages – released for the first time this week – Mr Johnson told Lord Brownlow: “I am afraid parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it. Can I possibly ask her to get in touch with you for approvals?”Lord Brownlow – who had been planning to set up a trust to fund the refurb, but ended up initially providing the costs – told Mr Johnson: “Of course, get Lulu to call me and we’ll get it sorted ASAP!”The Tory donor added: “I should have said, as the trust isn’t set up yet (will be in January) approval is a doddle as it’s only me and I know where the £ will come from, so as soon as Lulu calls we can crack on.”February 2021Media reports emerge about the funding of Mr Johnson’s lavish new wallpaper and other furnishings – featuring claims that some additional payments were made through the Conservative Party and had not been properly declaredIt became clear that Mr Johnson’s flat refurb had exceeded the annual public grant of up to £30,000 any prime minister can spend on renovations, and that there had been discussions about a Downing Street trust being set up to pay for the work. But No 10 initially insisted that Johnson had met all the costs of the work personally.April 2021A leaked email from Tory donor Brownlow to the party’s co-chair from October 2020 showed he was making donations “to cover the payments the party has already made on behalf of the soon to be formed Downing Street trust”.Mr Johnson’s former adviser Dominic Cummings claimed the PM had planned to have Tory donors “secretly pay” for the work – claiming he had warned against the “unethical, foolish, possibly illegal” funding plan.But the prime minister insisted he had “covered the costs” of the renovations himself, after he was challenged by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer at PMQs. The same month, the Electoral Commission announced an investigation into the matter.May 2021Mr Johnson’s adviser on ministers’ interests Lord Geidt announced that he had cleared the prime minister of breaching the ministerial code after his own investigation.In a harsh warning, Lord Geidt ruled that the PM had “unwisely” allowed the refurbishment of his flat to go ahead without “more rigorous regard for how this would be funded”.The adviser also said Mr Johnson had assured him he had no knowledge of the payments until immediately prior to media reports in February 2021.December 2021The Electoral Commission ruled that the Conservative Party broke electoral laws over the controversial funding of Mr Johnson’s flat refurbishment – announcing that reporting and recording laws were not followed and handing the party a £17,800 fine.The electoral watchdog also said that in November 2020, Mr Johnson had sent a WhatsApp message to Lord Brownlow “asking him to authorise further … refurbishment works on the residence” – suggesting Lord Geidt had been misled.The investigation found a total of £112,549 had been paid by Huntswood Associates – whose director is Tory donor Lord Brownlow – to cover the refurbishment work by Soane Britain, which is owned by interior designer Lulu Lytle.The Conservatives were negligent in failing to fully report a donation of just over £67,801 from Huntswood Associates Limited, while a separate sum from Lord Brownlow’s company connected to the costs of the was “not reported as required”.The Tory Party had provided a “bridging loan” of £52,802 to the Cabinet Office for the refurbishment, before it was reimbursed by Lord Brownlow.The probe also found that in March 2020, Mr Johnson paid £112,549 to the supplier himself, so the supplier was able to return money received from Lord Brownlow and the Cabinet Office.January 2022Ethics adviser Lord Geidt attacked the failure to provide his investigation “with all the material” behind the funding, as an exchange of letters with Mr Johnson was released.Lord Geidt describes the omission of the prime minister’s communication with Lord Brownlow back in November 2020 as “extraordinary”. The prime minister offered a “humble and sincere apology” for a mix-up he blamed on replacing his phone number due to “security issues”.Labour said the PM’s “pathetic excuses will fool no one”. Deputy leader Angela Rayner said it was “simply impossible to read these exchanges” and conclude Mr Johnson had not broken the ministerial code.Mr Johnson now faces the threat of a further inquiry by the parliamentary commissioner for standards. Questions remain about how Mr Johnson ultimately paid back the £112,549 needed for the renovations.The PM also faces new questions about Lord Brownlow’s idea for a national exhibition. He told the Tory donor he was “on the great exhibition plan”, the latest release of messages revealed. Two months later, Lord Brownlow joined a meeting with the culture secretary “to discuss plans for Great Exhibition 2.0” – a showcase of British innovation later renamed Festival UK. More

Boris Johnson is facing fresh sleaze allegations after appearing to back a plan for a new “Great Exhibition” put forward by the Tory donor who funded his luxury flat redecorations.The prime minister told Lord Brownlow he was “on the great exhibition plan” in a WhatsApp message in which he described his Downing Street rooms as “a bit of a tip” – and pleaded for more money.Two months later, the donor joined a meeting with the culture secretary “to discuss plans for Great Exhibition 2.0” – a showcase of British innovation later renamed “Festival UK” – a government document revealed.The link was exposed after Mr Johnson’s ethics adviser demanded to know why WhatsApp exchanges were kept secret in his probe into the controversial £142,000 refurbishment.In a new letter to the prime minister, Christopher Geidt attacked the failure to pass on the messages – blamed on a change of mobile phone – as “extraordinary”, warning public faith in government had been dented.He continued to conclude there was no breach of the ministerial code, but did not fully exonerate Mr Johnson, ahead of a further possible inquiry by the parliamentary commissioner for standards.Lord Geidt expressed “doubt” on whether he would have found that the prime minister “took steps to make the relevant declaration”, had he known the full story.Opposition parties demanded to know what Mr Johnson promised about an exhibition – after Lord Brownlow’s WhatsApp reply pledged to get the flat funding “sorted ASAP” and added: “Thanks for thinking about GE2.”Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, alleged: “It appears that Lord Brownlow had access to the prime minister and culture secretary to discuss Great Exhibition 2 because he was paying for his luxury flat renovations.”And Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat chief whip, said: “It stinks of the worst kind of Conservative cronyism, with Boris Johnson seemingly happy to scratch his donor’s back to get his flat spruced up in return.”Downing Street insisted the idea for “Great Exhibition 2” was “not taken forward” – arguing “Festival UK” was a different project entirely – but was unable to explain the differences between them.Asked if the prime minister’s support was sought in exchange for “giving him some cash for the flat refurb”, the spokesperson replied: “No. This isn’t something that we’ve taken forward.”It then emerged that, on 18 January last year, then culture secretary Oliver Dowden met with Lord Brownlow and Royal Albert Hall bosses “to discuss plans for Great Exhibition 2.0”.Ms Rayner added: “No one should be able to buy access or exchange wallpaper for festivals. Boris Johnson has serious questions to answer.”The new controversy comes on top of a stinging rebuke delivered by Lord Geidt for the failure to hand over the messages for his inquiry, which concluded in May last year.No 10 admitted officials failed to take up Lord Brownlow’s offer to provide “all the material”, arguing it feared compromising a parallel probe by the Electoral Commission.In his letter to his adviser, Mr Johnson agreed it was not “acceptable” that the Cabinet Office “at the very least did not inform you of the position they had taken”.He offered a “humble and sincere apology” for what happened – but insisted he did not recall asking Lord Brownlow for the funds for the lavish refit of the No 11 flat.Interviewed at a vaccination centre, the prime minister was asked if he expected people to believe he had forgotten to disclose key evidence simply because it was no longer stored on his phone.“I followed the ministerial guidance at all times – and yes,” he replied, declining to expand on what happened.The released messages revealed he told the donor: “Parts of our flat are still a bit of a tip and am keen to allow Lulu Lytle to get on with it,” referring to the designer whose wallpaper sells at more than £800 a roll.Lord Brownlow funded the redecorations, as attempts to set up a blind trust faltered, before Mr Johnson finally settled the bill – standing at £112,000, with £30,000 met by the taxpayer.The controversy was reignited when last month’s Electoral Commission report revealed the prime minister personally asked the peer for more funds, in November 2020.Yet he told Lord Geidt that he knew nothing about the way the work was being funded until three months later, triggering accusations that the adviser was misled.In his letter to his watchdog, sent on 21 December, Mr Johnson blamed replacing his phone number due to “security issues” – which meant he “did not have access to my previous device and did not recall the message exchange”. More

Disgraced former Labour peer Nazir Ahmed should be stripped of his title after his conviction for the attempted rape of a girl and the sexual assault of a boy, according to a Conservative MP.Lord Ahmed of Rotherham was convicted on Wednesday of two counts of attempted rape and one of buggery.Sheffield Crown Court heard he carried out the attacks when he was 16 or 17 in the 1970s, but the girl was much younger.Alexander Stafford, the Rother Valley MP who has launched a petition calling on justice secretary Dominic Raab to withdraw the peerage, described the title as “an insult to his victims”.“There is no getting away from the fact that this paedophile is in possession of a peerage and this is absolutely and categorically unacceptable,” he said.He tweeted: “As I said in the Commons last year: ‘There is no individual crime more horrific than paedophilia and there is no punishment too severe for the perpetrators of these heinous acts’.”Ahmed, 64, was created a life peer in 199 bu resigned from the House of Lords in 2020 after an investigation recommended he be expelled.However, only an Act of Parliament with royal assent can strip him of his title.A former Labour councillor in Rotherham, he left the party in 2013.Mr Stafford, who has previously spoken out against child sexual exploitation, said: “The focus now needs to be on the victims of this sick abuser and their decades-long fight for justice.“I thank them sincerely and wholeheartedly for their bravery and persistence and I welcome this verdict.”He added: “I will be speaking to my colleagues in the Department of Justice to ensure that this individual is not allowed to continue to hold a peerage, which would be an insult to his victims.”During the trial, a woman told the jury that Ahmed tried to rape her.Ahmed, who was both a Labour and non-affiliated peer throughout his 22-year parliamentary career, denied all the charges.The judge, Mr Justice Lavender, bailed Ahmed to appear for sentencing on 4 February. More